Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Gavva AR Real LLP – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim ownership and development rights over the subject property. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents argue procedural compliance and alternative remedies available. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analyzes relevant legal principles regarding mining and seigniorage fees. (Para 5) |
| 4. court remands the case for proper consideration of petitioners' submissions. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. R.S. Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.
2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS
i) Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.4.07 guntas in Survey No.88/AA of Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District, which is hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’.
ii) He has entered into a registered Development Agreement- cum-General Power of Attorney (for short ‘DAGPA’) bearing document No.2659 of 2018, dated 21.03.2018 with petitioner No.1 for development of Commercial Building over the subject prop
The issuance of a demand notice for seigniorage fee without proper consideration of the petitioners' explanations constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating remand for further evaluati....
Demand notices must adhere to principles of natural justice and proper procedural requirements; violations necessitate annulment and remand for reconsideration.
The issuance of a demand notice without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating its annulment and remand for proper inquiry.
Supreme Court had enunciated in clear and unambiguous terms that excavation of ordinary earth for construction of building purposes / development would not attract levy of royalty and penalty under p....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes does not attract levy of royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth is used for level....
The purpose of excavation determines liability for royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, 1966, and excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes does not attract royalty a....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
